Invasive Clones

Tom Tadfor Little wrote:

:   I wonder if that approach isn't too limited. Although most iris
;   fanciers have beds where many different kinds are planted and
;   need irises that mind their manners, there is a place in
:   landscaping for tough, fast-spreading, dominating plants.  I'm
:   thinking of daylilies. As much as I enjoy the newer, well-behaved
:   cultivars in the mixed border, I wouldn't want to be without
:   H. fulva for inexpensive, sure-fire, low-maintenance beautification
:   of problem areas. I wouldn't mind a few irises with the same
:   growth habit--_if_ I knew what I was in for before deciding where
:   to plant them!

Sounds like a more detailed explanation is in order, because this is an
excellent description of what I'd call a vigorous plant, not an invasive one.
The ones that are strong growers and also strong bloomers are certainly
desirable for landscaping, even if their flowers are not show quality.  We
discussed some good examples in an earlier thread on everbloomers.

But can we take another look at my original statement?

"It should be neither invasive nor suicidal, but rather provide dependable
increase and bloom. "

There is a very wide range of growth and bloom habits.   DEPENDABLE increase and
bloom requires both vigorous growth AND strong blooming tendencies.  For
example, the seedling I introduced as Invasion Force had eighteen increases less
than a year from germination.  I certainly think that qualifies as "vigorous",
but I would not have selected it if it were not also a reliable bloomer.  But I
consider bloom without increase and increase without bloom to be equally
undesirable.

Bloom is good -- but it IS possible to get too much of a good thing if a clone
blooms itself to death.  By "suicidal", I mean something with blooming
tendencies so strong that they overwhelm its ability to increase.  I have an
absolutely stunning quarterbred seedling from 1985 that now has only two
unbloomed fans although I have neither distributed nor destroyed any of its
increase.  Most clones with this defect eliminate themselves from consideration
because it isn't possible to accumulate enough stock to distribute, but anyone
who has ever had a variety "bloom out" knows what I'm talking about.

Growth is also good -- but some clones sustain a fantastic growth rate by not
bothering to bloom so by "invasive" I meant the opposite extreme:  a plant that
increases rampantly but rarely blooms, one that can travel across the garden as
it increases, unnoticed until it blooms.   Fortunately, clones of this type
rarely hit the market because they don't bloom enough to make a favorable
impression on the hybridizer. 

So, does anyone have alternative terms for these two undesirable traits?

Sharon McAllister (73372.1745@compuserve.com)
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index